Tag: Open Access

This year’s International Open Access Week is emphasizing equitable foundations for open knowledge. Across the sciences, social sciences, and humanities there is a growing recognition of the importance of open access to research data. The FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles encompass a set of technical/ computational characteristics that enable data discovery and reuse. Data sharing can advance the rate of research discovery, provide the basis for new forms of computational and multi-disciplinary research, and on a personal level, may lead to increased citations of the related articles.

To bring this to a more personal level of application, here are just a few ways in which you can start supporting open access to your own research data.

1. Use open, non-proprietary file formats whenever they are available and appropriate for your research. By using these formats you enable others to view and use your data without the need for specialty software, and provide some assurance that when software changes, or disappears, your data will still be usable by others (and yourself).

Sometimes data will need to be converted to an open format, and it’s important to be aware of the considerations about what might happen to the data, or embedded information, during this process. The UK Data Services website and other sources outline these issues, and you can also contact us for assistance.

2. Deposit in repositories that will provide long-term, open access to and preservation of the data. Do not rely on supplemental files with articles that may be locked behind a paywall. Instead, seek out repositories that are sustainably funded, and provide open access to at least the metadata via a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or other persistent identifier. Some funding organizations list their preferred data repositories with their data management planning guidelines, and you can also contact us for assistance.

In addition to external data repositories, the UI provides a data repository in which you can deposit your research data, and we can assist you with this as well.

3. When you deposit your data, insure that it is well-documented so that others can find it, understand it and know about any restrictions on its use. Most repositories provide standardized fields for you to submit this information. Document the collection/generation process, analysis, and any other computational workflow that would be necessary to understand or reproduce the data. You may also want to deposit a readme file for additional information, if the repository allows.

These are a few basic steps that you can take when you are ready to share your research data. With some time and effort, your data will be accessible and enable you to have a broader impact through sharing these products of your research.

In the libraries, we spend the whole month of October celebrating Open Access (OA), and with good reason. As scholarly publishing continues to evolve and spawn new models for disseminating knowledge, it’s more important than ever to make sure that anyone can access critical research and that scholars from anywhere in the world can publish their discoveries. It’s also important for scholars at the University of Iowa to understand how to manage the impact of their research, disseminate it as widely as possible, and to choose publication venues that will help reach their goals.

Guiding researchers as they navigate these issues is a big part of my job as a scholarly communications librarian. I meet with all kinds of students and faculty to talk about the ins and outs of publishing their research. If you’re interested in getting your publications out from behind paywalls and into the hands of readers, here’s how I can help:

Find open access journals in your discipline

One way to make your research open is to publish in an open access journal. But what does that mean? Open access journals are publications that make it free for readers to access ALL of their content through the publisher’s website. Quality OA journals will be transparent in their business and editorial practices and should be well-regarded in your field. They should also be up-front about any Article Processing Charges (APCs) used to offset the cost of publishing. The Directory of Open Access Journals can help you determine whether a journal is, in fact, open and can help you find open journals in your discipline. I can help you navigate this directory or provide you with additional information about journals.

Get your work into Iowa Research Online

Iowa Research Online (IRO) is Iowa’s institutional repository for publications and other research artifacts. This means that UI faculty, staff, and students can upload their published work and make it discoverable to anyone with an internet connection, anywhere in the world. Including your article in IRO is another great way to make your research open, and I would be glad to help walk you through the process. Not every publisher will allow you to include the final version of your article in a repository. But luckily, there are tools that we can use to determine exactly what your publisher will allow. Sherpa/RoMEO is one such tool. This directory lists current publisher policies on self-archiving and will tell you what you can and cannot include in IRO.

Find funding for Article Processing Charges (APCs)

APCs are one of the most misunderstood aspects of scholarly publishing. In some disciplines, it has long been standard practice to charge authors “page fees” for charts, graphics, color printing, or other publication costs. In other disciplines, giving money to a publisher is considered “pay to publish,” and is not seen as a legitimate practice. In the world of open access publishing, we have seen APCs crop up, proliferate, and grow to sometimes thousands of dollars per publication. Not all OA journals charge APCs, in fact the vast majority do not. However, the ones who do are often big name journal titles, with high impact factors, produced by major academic publishers. These are often the same journals in which scholars need to publish, for promotion and tenure, or simply to be widely read. In many ways, these publishers still control the landscape, even the OA landscape, and it looks like their APCs aren’t going away anytime soon. If you find yourself needing to pay an APC or are considering an OA publication, but don’t know how to fund it, I can help. Often, you can designate grant funding to be earmarked for APCS or your department may have funds available for this purpose.

Get up-to-date on funder mandates for open

Funding organizations are slowly recognizing that the research they fund as a public good should, in fact, be available to the public. While other parts of the world are further along that the United States in this regard (See Plan S, for example), certain federal agencies require that funded research be made publicly available. When this is the case, researchers must comply with the mandate. Some agencies, such as the National Institute of Health, make complying with this policy relatively easy. Others are a bit more tricky. This is another area where I can be of assistance.

If you’d like to discuss how to make your research open, I’d love to hear from you. Feel free to send me an email at mahrya-burnett@uiowa.edu to set up an appointment. I’m also a part of the library’s new Scholarly Impact Department, which rolls our scholarly communications and data services into one unit. If you’d like to learn more about the new department, please contact us at lib-impact@uiowa.edu. Let’s work together to make Iowa’s scholarship as open as it can be!

During the month of Open Access week (October 22-28, 2018) we will be highlighting a number of guest posts from University of Iowa Faculty and Staff who have personal experience making their work Open Access. We appreciate their contributions.

The fourth post is by Alex C. Essenmacher, MD, Diagnostic Radiology.

Open Access – a fitting model for the case report

Medical knowledge has proliferated rapidly in recent decades and seems to be accelerating, and with increasingly subspecialized knowledge there are constant changes in treatments and practice. The newest discoveries published don’t tend to change the wider practice of medicine right away; understandably, more certainty about the effectiveness and safety of a change in practice needs to be established before it reaches a patient. Review articles, meta-analyses, and comparative studies that follow shortly after a new discovery might bring about that change, rendering approaches recently taught in medical school obsolete.

There is an increased drive from national medical leadership to teach and encourage good scholarship in physicians. This push manifests as statistics questions and sample literature comprehension on medical board examinations and required scholarship projects from residents and fellows. In graduate medical education, advancement is generally less dependent on publications than non-clinical, university academics, but residents in medical education programs may pursue publication as a way to fulfill the scholarly project mandated by the American College of Graduate Medical Education.

In the internet age, publication in many varieties, including academia, differs from the old model. Journals can make content available digitally as soon as it is approved and reach a larger audience even with fewer printed copies circulating. Despite the plethora of venues, publishing a manuscript can remain difficult because the most established journals in a field are often in environments of increasing complexity and subspecialization. Clinical residents have the primary responsibility of mastering patient care rather than become researchers, so the time to complete large projects may not be available to them.

Physicians and others in the healthcare field communicate not just in research and review articles but often in case reports – detailed descriptions of one patient and the disease diagnosis, course, and outcome – that is usually reported for novelty or educational value. It is a way to exchange useful knowledge in the confines of the academic setting that doesn’t require long data acquisition periods and a statistician. The most recognized journals in medical fields, because of the increased complexity of the science, often forgo consideration of case reports. There is still a home for publishing medical case reports, but now it is often in a smaller journal, usually newer, sometimes online-only, and disproportionately utilizing an open-access model. The University of Iowa Open Access Fund makes it easier to share insightful cases from the university hospital with the world, and the process is quick and easy!

During the month of Open Access week (October 22-28, 2018) we will be highlighting a number of guest posts from University of Iowa Faculty and Staff who have personal experience making their work Open Access. We appreciate their contributions.

The third post is by Jose Assouline, Ph.D. Bioengineering and NanoMedtrix, LLC

Biomedical Cutting Edge Technology and Open Access Publication: A Synergistic Must

For decades, modern medical and scientific discoveries, and therapeutic discourse were published in journals/books. The paper versions were widely circulated among the scientific community and were the basis for new research. In ancient history hand-written and printed empirical experiments and commentaries were the physical storage and dissemination of the knowledge of the time. It took time and money to get knowledge. Times have changed, it is now an era when new technology and information can be acquired nearly instantly. Scientific, medical, and engineering innovations have to be accessible by scientist and lay population alike. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to newly acquired knowledge that is ready for public consumption.

The burden of scientific rigor remains in the hands of the generator of the science being disseminated, as well as the high level of scientific scrutiny and integrity of the reviewers. A number of new scientific journals have popped up in every field, although the quality of the journals vary. However, publication in all these journals is expensive and the distribution may not be as widespread (and free) as the brochure had suggested. Open Access (OA) publication is the most welcome solution to the growing demand for quality publications freely accessible by anyone. The scientific scrutiny for most OA journals is as high as any printed versions. The bonus is: the deployment of ideas, technology, and comments have a wider and more far-reaching impact.

My field is nanotechnology applications in medicine and engineering. I make every effort to submit to OA publications for the high quality of the review, the expedience of the process, and the broad/instant distribution. As an educator and scientist what better vehicle to teaching and intellectual discussion could there be, than a nearly immediate transmission to students/readers? Nanotechnology changes and evolves constantly and snags numerous complications along the way. It spans many disciplines and it is difficult to master them all. Nanotechnology in medicine is almost a contradiction in terms. Small technology and patient care, innovations that make people feel better. How to reconcile these two seemingly disparate worlds? Only an open platform can help experts from various walks of life view the documents, data, and comments. Only OA can expose the intricacy of these minute technological marvels. Undoubtedly, OA has opened a novel dialogue platform, a new way out of the artificially constraining, traditional form of publishing ideas. Now, the inherent delay between discoveries and distribution, has vanished. Open Access publication offers scientists a natural projection for innovative ideas in their respective fields.

During the month of Open Access week (October 22-28, 2018) we will be highlighting a number of guest posts from University of Iowa Faculty and Staff who have personal experience making their work Open Access. We appreciate their contributions.

The second post is by Geb Thomas, Professor, Industrial and Systems Engineering

Open Access journals are subversive

As academics, we regularly review and edit for the content of scientific publications for free. We receive federal and state government funds to conduct research, which leads to new knowledge, which we write up and give away to publishers who sell it, effectively making it inaccessible to anyone who isn’t associated with a major university. The publishers are a parasite on scientific progress. Elsevier (a major academic publisher) made 2.5 billion pounds of profit (34%) in 2017. Typesetting, printing, and mailing journals is no longer needed. What role do modern scientific journal publishers fulfill that they need to be rewarded with profits equal to many times the investment whole states make in higher education?

The world would be a better place if more people could learn about it. We need more readers. Government-funded research should be broadly and freely disseminated.

If we put our writing and reviewing energy into our open-access journals, we can subvert this functionless nuisance to the flow of knowledge and make the world a better place.

During the month of Open Access week (October 22-28, 2018) we will be highlighting a number of guest posts from University of Iowa Faculty and Staff who have personal experience making their work Open Access. We appreciate their contributions.

The first post is by Danielle Medgyesi, recent MS Graduate, Department of Occupational and Environmental Health

This year’s Open Access (OA) theme (2018): “Designing Equitable Foundations for Open Knowledge” is especially relevant to a project our team recently published in an OA journal. As a University of Iowa graduate student in the College of Public Health, I worked closely with Assistant Professor Kelly Baker, PhD, and her extensive international network to develop a thesis project conducted in an internally displaced persons (IDP) community in Corail, Haiti. The community was established as part of the 2010 earthquake relief effort. Reflective of IDP communities worldwide, Corail has become a permanent residence for many families. Yet, residences face unsanitary and unsafe conditions due to a lack of permanent sanitation infrastructure and access to waste management services. The goal of the thesis project was to evaluate young children’s exposure to environmental hazards during play in public neighborhood areas that contain deteriorated latrines, trash, free-roaming animals, and open drainage canals.

As with many Global Health efforts, this project required resources and collaborators beyond the academic setting. We worked closely with colleagues at the non-profit organization, Terre des hommes, including our team leader at headquarters (Switzerland) and local staff working with and living in Corail (Haiti). As the project unfolded, our network of allies and those impacted by and interested in the health and safety risks of young children grew extensively. Thus, for the project to reach its’ full potential, we needed to involve and inform a diverse audience—from caregivers living in Corail, local partners in Haiti, and more broadly non-profit organizations and other academic institutes globally. Knowledge sharing, especially in the context of international research, is heavily dependent on the ability to overcome geographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic barriers. Publishing in an OA article to ensure free access to the public is a step in the right direction to overcome such barriers. Yet, reflective of the 2018 theme, it is our responsibility as researchers and those involved in information sharing to continuously evaluate and develop new strategies so that research is truly accessible to a diverse audience, including those who have limited access to the internet and literacy.

Conclusively, I would like to express my support and gratitude for the OA fund at the University of Iowa and encourage others, especially students, to take advantage of this wonderful resource. With the decision to re-fund the OA program in the spring, the staff at the University of Iowa library were swift to respond and process our application to publish the thesis project in an OA international journal (IJERPH). The library’s quick turnaround permitted the manuscript to be available to the public shortly thereafter. Having the OA fund at the University of Iowa is a valuable resource for faculty and graduate students who may not have other means to pay for the processing fee. I look forward to following OA efforts as they continue to expand and reach a global audience.

During the month of Open Access week (October 23-29, 2017) we will be highlighting a number of guest posts from University of Iowa Faculty and Staff who have personal experience making their work Open Access. We appreciate their contributions.

The six, and final post is by Kanchna Ramchandran, Associate Research Scientist, Department of Psychiatry.

One of the ultimate goals of academic publishing is to make the results of robust research available to peers in academia, end-users and society in general, in a timely fashion. OA journals represent the future in smoothly oiling the wheels of this process, which may sometimes appear opaque amongst conventional journals.

An advantage that I have experienced in submitting to an OA journal is the quick turnaround from submission to final editorial decision. It can be quite disheartening to wait for up to 1 year (the longest I have experienced from a tier 1 conventional journal), only to receive a rejection at the end. In comparison, I have received full reviews within a few weeks from an OA journal. Thus, even if rejected, the research can benefit from editorial and peer-reviewed feedback to improve the manuscript, before moving forward in a timely fashion along the publishing assembly line.

I have also appreciated the transparency, and on one occasion the conversational style of the review process between the editor, reviewers and the authors of the manuscript in an OA journal that I have worked with. It embodied egalitarian scientific dialogue, where the authors could engage directly with reviewers under the guidance and direction of the editor. On a subliminal level, this can make a huge difference to all stakeholders involved in the publishing process, keeping peer-reviewers and authors on a level playing field.

An excellent example of a pure OA journal is the Frontiers group, which over a medium range in time, has established a solid reputation of scientific excellence in the quality of peer-reviewed articles it has published. It is also heartening to see conventional journal publishers take a hybrid approach in offering authors the option of early online publication, for a fee albeit. It is hoped that in the medium run, the business model of peer-reviewed publishing amongst OA journals, is able to economically scale itself such that authors do not have to bear the financial cost of getting their research to the public domain. This unfortunate current practice appears to undermine both academic and business ethics. It is in this domain that the OA fund offered at the University of Iowa can bypass these ethically thorny issues while supporting researchers in getting their work published.

In a digital world, OA publishing seems the sensible way forward. Outside of the impact on science, it is an environmental boon as a well, reducing the stress on paper production and the resources required to store these journals. As innovations arise in enhancing digital storage capacity and security, OA publishing could well become the conventional form of scientific reach in the developed world. The challenge will be on OA publishers to provide truly open non-digital access in the near future, to the majority of the world’s population with poor digital access, but nevertheless has a basic human right to literacy and education, about new discoveries, innovations, inventions and ideas.

During the month of Open Access week (October 23-29, 2017) we will be highlighting a number of guest posts from University of Iowa Faculty and Staff who have personal experience making their work Open Access. We appreciate their contributions.

The fifth post is by our own Mahrya Carncross, Scholarly Communication Librarian.

With the proliferation of open access journals, researchers can get their work into the hands of more readers, and readers—especially those who aren’t affiliated with major universities and their vast journal collections—are able to access necessary research for free. This is a good thing. Authors get a boost in their article citations, and scholars of all stripes can get the articles they need. But there are also bad actors who sully the reputation of open access.

Predatory journals, which masquerade as legitimate, are essentially money-making schemes that take advantage of the OA model. They spam scholars with flattering emails, encouraging them to submit manuscripts or serve on editorial boards, often with promises of quick publication and impressive metrics. They flatter researchers with invitations to present their work at conferences in far-off locales. In actuality, it’s all a ruse. Predatory publishers will post your manuscript, but they’ll charge you a high article processing charge (APC) and will conduct no real peer-review.[1] If you agree to serve on an editorial board, you may never actually see an article cross your desk, but your credentials will appear on the journal’s website, adding to its appearance of legitimacy. Often times, the scope of the journal will be impossibly broad, with titles such as American Research Thoughts or International Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences. Sometimes predatory journals will even steal or imitate the name of an existing journal, fooling scholars into thinking they are publishing in a well-known source.

For many years, librarians and academics used Beall’s List to help us call balls and strikes on OA journals. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian and associate professor at The University of Colorado, Denver, maintained a comprehensive list of publishers and standalone journals that he deemed to be predatory. His list was used widely, both by scholars deciding where to publish and the librarians advising them. Beall was and remains a controversial figure. He is a staunch critic of the OA model in general, much to the ire of OA advocates. Others have criticized the lack of transparency in his inclusion criteria for predatory journals. Publishers, such as the suspect medical outfit OMICS, sued Beall and his university when they appeared on the list. Yet Beall’s list served a much-needed purpose. It helped us parse the good from the bad in open access publishing.

Given all the controversy, it may not be surprising that the list was taken down in January, 2017. Beall himself has remained silent on the issue, and there has been speculation about whether his employer had a hand in its removal. But now, those of us who care about identifying predatory journals are left with a Beall-shaped hole. The scholarly analytics company, Cabell’s, has come out with its own list of predatory journals, which it sells to academic libraries for a substantial fee. Anonymous researchers have posted archived versions of Beall’s list, but these remain static—a picture of the predatory landscape as it existed in January, 2017. As time goes on, this list will become less relevant.

So what is a scholar to do? I would recommend a few things. First, enlist the help your department’s library liaison. These librarians know the academic publishing landscape in your field and are familiar with publishing trends. Check with your colleagues, as well. If you’ve never heard of a journal, ask others in your field. Finally, check for warning signs. Did you receive a form email from out-of-the-blue asking you to submit to a journal you’ve never heard of? Does the journal’s website appear to have either very little article content or tons of it? Read some of the articles. Do they seem to be well-written and well-reviewed? Is the journal indexed with reputable sources? Check to make sure the journal is actually indexed where it says it’s indexed. You can check the Directory of Open Access Journals for well-reputed titles, as well.

We’re living in interesting times when it comes to scholarly publishing. Much will change in coming months and years. I would encourage you to explore open options for the sake of making research available to all, but I would also encourage you to think critically about where you submit.

[1] Legitimate open journals also charge APCS, but these are used to fund the operation of the journal, which includes peer review, processing of manuscripts, and editorship. Legitimate journals will tell you up-front about their APCS and how they are being used.

During the month of Open Access week (October 23-29, 2017) we will be highlighting a number of guest posts from University of Iowa Faculty and Staff who have personal experience making their work Open Access. We appreciate their contributions.

The fourth post is by Thomas Gruca, Henry B. Tippie Research Professor of Marketing,

A new path for sharing your research

My path to the world of open access journals was more by accident than intent. I was aware of the “pay to play” model where open access means the journal is “open” to publishing anything the author submits so long as a large fee is paid. I was unaware that there are many open access journals with rigorous review standards and high impact factors.

My journey began, as many do, after my paper was rejected by multiple top-tier journals. This study looked at rural outreach by cardiologists in Iowa and surrounding states. It is an unusual topic for most top medical journals since their primary focus is on clinical research, not issues of access (especially in rural states). The next potential outlet happened to be an open access journal sponsored by a major non-profit organization dedicated to research and treatment of cardiovascular disease. I met with the editor-in-chief who is on the faculty here at Iowa. After looking over the paper, he agreed that it might be a good fit for his journal. He also described the process of choosing another editor to manage the review process to avoid conflicts of interest. [Quick lesson for new researchers – try to talk to editors before submitting a paper that might not fall in the scope of a given journal. It saves time and effort for all involved.]

The reviewers were very prompt, thorough and tough. Now that I have met all of their requirements and answered all of their questions, I have to admit that their input greatly improved the paper. Moreover, one of the new analyses they wanted has given me new ideas for future research.

This work was not supported by grants and there are very few grants supporting research in business. Once the paper was accepted, I was ready to pay the publication fee from the research funding provided by my college. (For this journal, that amount corresponded to 90% of my entire research budget for the year.) Fortunately, I received substantial help from the Libraries and Provost’s Open Access fund.

My experience has a few lessons for other who are considering submitting their work to an open access journal. First, open access journals are not all the same. There are library staff members who can help you identify appropriate publishers and avoid predatory outlets. Second, open access journals are peer-reviewed and rigorously so! High quality journals – open access or not – have a high bar for publication, so make sure you submission is the best it can be. Finally, while the publication charges can be a barrier, the OA Fund may be able to help you share your work freely with anyone and everyone.

During the month of Open Access week (October 23-29, 2017) we will be highlighting a number of guest posts from University of Iowa Faculty and Staff who have personal experience making their work Open Access. We appreciate their contributions.

At a personal level Open Access to scientific and technical publications is fundamental to my day-to-day activities as a researcher and educator. Barriers, especially financial, in our ability to access our own cumulative knowledge are detrimental to the growth of our societies, particularly in regions of the world struggling even for basic sustenance. It is good to see ‘open access’ which made its formal appearance at the turn of the century, gain momentum including in my field of computer science. Authors now have varied options as for instance, to retain just copyright or to retain all rights. I became aware – some years ago – of how painful it was to access the literature when I wanted to make thirty copies of my own paper for my graduate class. The publisher asked for several thousand dollars in copyright fees! If it had been a last minute article selection then making copies for free would have been approved under ‘fair use’. But I could not make copies and plan to distribute them say in a month’s time. The whole situation was bizarre. Open access comes to the rescue in this and many other situations. I would like to especially credit the field of physics for our open access opportunities today. Physicists had set the precedent for free sharing of knowledge way before open access came up the horizon. Physics departments and libraries, at least across the US, would with almost clock-work precision exchange pre-prints amongst themselves through the postal service. Each department maintained its mailing lists for sending and receiving these preprints which would be arranged nicely in a reading room. Reliance on the postal services diminished with the arrival of arXiv – a repository for electronic preprints – about thirty years ago. ArXiv continues today even in areas beyond physics. The fact that this ‘free’ exchange model clearly did not impinge on the profits from journals in Physics was part of the winning argument for the spread of Open Access. I also want to acknowledge the strong support offered by Libraries and Universities such as our own; for instance, their support of publication costs associated with Open Access journals is invaluable. These fees are worth it given the long term access options they yield. My students and I have availed of this facility on several occasions and we are grateful for these funds. I know open access will continue to flourish and anything outside will steadily become a dwindling exception.